Allahabad Court August 1939 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rai Sri Krishna Mohan Ji Vs. Purshotam Das and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All695
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. This Court allowed the appeal and therefore did not affirm the decree of the Court below. The application is under Section 110, Civil P.C. It is necessary for the applicant to show that it comes within the provisions of that Section in regard to valuation. The applicant was the plaintiff and the valuation in his plaint for the purpose of jurisdiction was Rs. 9000 and for the purpose of court, fee Rs. 5081-4-0, the latter being based on the revenue of three villages and fifteen times certain annual profits from muafi. The application now alleges that the real value of the subject-matter is above Rupees 10,000 in the Court of first instance and in the appeal to this Court. To indicate this valuation learned Counsel takes the figures for revenue in three villages in the plaint and multiplies them by 20 and also multiplies the net profits by 20 instead of by 15. The result attained is Rs. 12,431. No ground is sho...
Ram Kumar Lal and anr. Vs. Ram Charittar Lal and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All725
Bennet, J.1. This is a second appeal by the defendants against a decree of the lower Appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs granting the plaintiffs an injunction. The facts are simple. There was a house in the District of Azamgarh which the Collector of Azamgarh sold for arrears of land revenue due from Ram Govind Lal and the house was sold as the house of Ram Gobind Lal. The plaintiffs claim that they are separate from Ram Govind Lal and that the house is their property and that they have an enemy, defendant 3, Ram Naresh Lal Mukhtar, and that he by his fraud got this house sold for the arrears of land revenue and that he supplied the money to the purchaser to buy the house and got the house eventually transferred to his brother Rarn Kumar Lal. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed and the lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had proved that the entire proceedings from attachment to sale were fraudulent and that the house belonged to the plaintiffs...
Mt. Ram Kailash Kunwari Vs. L. Ishwar Saran and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All715
Bennet, J.1. This is an application of an unsuccessful plaintiff to appeal as a pauper. She was allowed to sue as a pauper in the Court below. By our order of 5th September 1938 we stated:We have gone through the judgment of the Court below and the application for leave to appeal as a pauper. We consider that it has been established that the case does come within the provisions of the order of pauper appeals. Accordingly, we direct that notice should issue to the opposite party to show cause why this application should not be allowed. The notice will be solely on the question as to whether the appellant is or is not a pauper,and notice was also to issue to learned Government Advocate. Today the Standing Counsel for Government states that he does not desire to oppose the application. In fact, under the provisions of Order 44, Rule 2, no notice need have been issued. Mr. Baleshwari Prasad for the respondents has objected to the previous order and claims that he is entitled to argue on th...
Mt. Janak Dulari Vs. Sri Gopal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All706
Bennet, J.1. This is a first appeal by Mt. Janak Dulari, the plaintiff, whose suit has been dismissed on a preliminary issue of law. Mt. Janak Dulari claimed that she was entitled to one quarter share of the family property which had been held by her husband who died on 26th July 1937. She claimed this alternatively, either on the ground that her husband died possessed of this one quarter share as his separate property, or that, if the family was not proved to have been divided, the plaintiff was under Act 18 of 1937 entitled to have this one-quarter share. The written statement pleaded thatAct 18 of 1937 was in no way valid and enforceable. It had not been validly passed by the Legislature. The Government or the Legislature had no power to enforce such an Act.2. For some reason not stated no issue was framed on the question of whether the husband of the plaintiff died joint or separate. An issue was framed, No. 1:Whether the Act 18 of 1937 was not validly passed by the Legislature and...
Munshi Bishan Lal Vs. Lala Banwari Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All713
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court. The appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. The plaintiff sought to redeem certain house property on payment to the defendants of the sum of Rs. 550. The trial Court decreed the claim. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit. The decision of the lower Appellate Court has been upheld by the learned Single Judge before whom the case came in second appeal. On 10th November 1932, one Mt. Kishan Piari executed a sale deed by which she conveyed the property in dispute to the respondents for the sum of Rs. 550. The deed contained a condition that if she should repay the amount of the sale consideration to the respondents with, in one year the respondents would be bound to re-transfer the property to her provided she paid the money out of her pocket. In, other words it was a condition of the transaction that the obligation to re-transfer would not bind the respondents if the vendor mortgage...
Sri NaraIn Khanna Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All723
Bennet, J.1. This is an application on behalf of one Sri Narain Khanna for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against an appellate decision of this Court in F.A. No. 166 of 1935. The application is made under Section 110, Civil P.C., and Section 109(c), Civil P.C., has been added today. The facts are that there was a land acquisition case in Meerut and Sri Narain Khanna made an application under the Land Acquisition Act to the District Judge and the District Judge granted Rs. 26,238. Sri Narain Khanna appealed to this Court and we increased that amount by Rs. 9902 and allowed interest. The amount claimed by Sri Narain Khanna before the District Judge and in this Court and in the proposed appeal to the Privy Council is over Rupees 10,000. The first question is whether he has a right of appeal under Section 110, Civil P.C. This provides:And where the decree or final order appealed from affirms the decision of the Court immediately below the Court passing such decree or final order...
Radha Krishna Beni Prasad Vs. Kishore Chand, Shiva Charan Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940All24
Bajpai, J.1. This is an appeal by the firm of Messrs. Radha Krishna Beni Prasad who were the plaintiffs in the litigation out of which this appeal has arisen. It is connected with First Appeal No. 507 of 1937 which is an appeal by the firm of Messrs. Kishore Chand Shiva Charan Lal, defendant 1 in the litigation. Mr. Pyare Lal Banerji appearing on behalf of the said defendant conceded that his appeal will be pressed only on the question of costs. As we propose to remit certain issues we have decided to leave the consideration of the question of costs when we decide the appeals finally. This is all that is necessary to be said in connexion with First Appeal No. 507 of 1937 at present. The plaintiff impleaded three defendants in the suit. Defendant 1 was Messrs. Kishore Chand Shiva Charan Lal of Bareilly, defendant 2 was the Budaun Electric Supply Company and defendant 3 was Messrs. P.L. Jaitly & Co. No written statement was filed by defendant 3 and the case proceeded ex parte against the...
Hira Lal and ors. Vs. Pyare Lal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1939All681
Ganga Nath, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal and arises out of a suit brought against them by the plaintiff, respondent for partition of the property described in the plaint and for accounts from 16th August 1921 to the date of the suit. The plaintiff's case was that the family was joint, that his share was one-third and1 that he had been excluded from the enjoyment of the joint family property by the defendants. The relation of the parties will appear from the following pedigree:BHOLA NATH|----------------------------------------| | |Saheb Ram= Khawani Ram Mohan LalMt. Hardei | || Chiranji Lal Hira LalDurga Prasad= Deft. 2 Deft. 1Mt. Champa Devi | |(widow) Eatau Lal Lakshmi Chandra| Deft. 3 Deft. 6Deft. 2 party | || --------------------- || | | |Pyare Lal Chandra Kiran Hari Shanker |(adopted son) Deft. 4 Deft. 5 |Plaintiff. |||------------------| |Ram Saran ChandraDefendant 7 BhanDefendant 82. Durga Prasad died on 15th August 1921. He left a will under which he authorized his widow, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›